Ford CK-4 Issues

Status
Not open for further replies.
There are now good options of CK-4 oils that are Ford approved. Why not stick to them? Widely available Rotello T6 is approved. So this is almost not as much an issue as it was a year ago.
 
Still seeing and buying CJ-4 off the shelf at Wally World. DELO 5w40, not much left but grabbing it when I see it at $19.99. Ran through all my Delvac 1 CJ-4 as of last months change.

The Valvoline PBE 5w40 is on the Ford approved list and used to be cheap at $60 a case shipped on Amazon but the price jumped to $78 a case recently. Looks like Rotella T6 is the most cost effective option nowadays of the CK-4 for those in the colder temperatures wanting easier start up in the winter.
 
Here, I the CJ-4 stuff might be a bit harder to find, if the CJ-4 rollout itself was any example. For that, the CI-4+ stuff, aside from boutiques, was gone in under a month. There still are a couple mainstream HDEOs, though, that are still technically CJ-4, and may continue being produced. Delvac 1 LE 5w-30 is CJ-4/SN, and I've seen nothing about it going CK-4, but it meets all the relevant ACEA specs, not to mention builder approvals. Shell took CK-4 as an opportunity roll out their E6 lubricant, so that works, too.
 
Originally Posted By: F250_SUPER_4x4
Question for all the smart guys:

As I understand it, Ford was not happy about the API CK-4 standard due to Phos/zinc levels and wear based on valve train testing. Is it advisable to add a ZDDP supplement to a CK-4 oil to bring it up to the 1600-1800 PPM level? I use Rotella T6.

2015 Ford SD 6.7L Diesel fully deleted so no SCR/DPF issues


Just keep running Rotella T6 or Valvoline Extreme blue if you're worried. At around $20 a gallon (and cheaper with rebates from a lot of retailer), there is no reason not to run Rotella T6
 
Last edited:
Received this nugget from a friend of mine. Below is the Ford Engineering Material Specification WSS-M2C171-F1

ENGINEERING MATERIAL SPECIFICATION
Date Action Revisions Rev. 0
2016 Aug 9 Draft C. E Richardson, NA
Controlled document at www.MATS.ford.com Copyright © 2016, Ford Global Technologies, LLC Page 1 of 12
OIL, ENGINE, DIESEL, SERVICE FILL WSS-M2C171-F1
1. SCOPE
This material specification defines the minimum acceptable performance requirements and physical/chemical properties of all appropriate viscosity grades of engine oils to be used in Ford Motor Company vehicles in its global engine/vehicle service operations.
2. APPLICATION
This specification is released for all appropriate viscosity grades of service fill engine oils used for lubrication of compression ignition engines using diesel fuel. The Documentation, Performance Requirements and Quality Control subsections of the QUALIFICATION PROCEDURE apply only to engine oils supplied directly to Ford Motor Company
3. REQUIREMENTS
3.1 APPROVED SOURCES FOR FORD MOTOR COMPANY INTERNAL USE
This specification requires the use of approved sources. Only the sources identified on the Ford Approved Source List (ASL) can be used when this specification is listed on the drawing, CAD
file, or other documents. The list of approved sources is located within Ford at www.mats.ford.com or available externally through a Ford Materials Engineer.
3.2 PERFORMANCE
Shall meet all the requirements of and be licensed to display API service category CK-4 and also meet additional Ford test requirements.
All required engine tests shall be conducted in accordance with the most recently approved procedures as described in ASTM Standards and the applicable ASTM Standards Research Reports and Information Letters. All tests under surveillance by ASTM must be conducted using test equipment monitored by and calibrated to the requirements of the ASTM Test Monitoring Center.
3.2.1 Mack T-11 (ASTM D7156)
3.2.2 Mack T-12 (ASTM D7422)
3.2.3 Cummins ISB (ASTM D7484)
3.2.4 Cummins ISM (ASTM D7468)
3.2.5 Caterpillar C13 (ASTM D7549)
3.2.6 Caterpillar 1N (ASTM D6750)
3.2.7 Roller Follower Wear (ASTM D5966)
3.2.8 Caterpillar C13 Engine Oil Aeration (ASTM D8047)
3.2.9 Volvo T-13 Oil Oxidation (ASTM D8048)
ENGINEERING MATERIAL SPECIFICATION
WSS-M2C171-F
Copyright © 2016, Ford Global Technologies, LLC Page 2 of 12
3.2.10 Valve-Train Wear, Ford Diesel Engine Test (Consult Ford Engineering for test requirements)
3.2.10.1 Ford Engineering should be notified prior to scheduling/conducting the Ford Valve-Train Wear test. Test requester shall also provide test information, including, test lab, formulation code and test identification number prior to the start of the test.
3.2.11 Additional requirements:
Preliminary approval may be granted without the valve train wear test based on evaluation of other data by Ford Motor Company. This could include but is not limited to the following:
3.2.11.1 Previously licensed CJ-4 formulation (licensed prior to January 1, 2016) that also meets and is licensable to CK-4.
3.2.11.2 Previously licensed CJ-4 formulation (licensed prior to January 1, 2016), with only the addition of an antioxidant boost to pass the T-13 test that also meets and is licensable to CK-4. All other engine tests beside the T-13 and D4037 aeration tests must have been conducted on the original un-boosted CJ-4 formulation. Based on the type of antioxidant boost used, level 1 or 2 support data must be provided to show the antioxidant boost will not degrade oil performance in the other tests. Any other formulation rebalancing due to the addition of the antioxidant must also be supported with data to show no degradation in performance in other tests.
3.2.11.3 Other testing conducted on the 6.7L engine may be used if approved by Ford Motor Company prior to testing. This can include, vehicle testing or, dynamometer testing.
3.2.12 Once the Valve-Train Wear Test is available to run, all formulations approved against the requirements of 3.2.11 must be run and pass the test to stay on the list of approved formulations. The test must be run within 6 months of the test becoming available. All required ASTM engine tests shall be conducted in accordance with the most recently approved
procedures as described in ASTM Standards and the applicable ASTM Standards Research Reports and Information Letters. All tests under surveillance by ASTM must be conducted using test equipment monitored by and calibrated to the requirements of the ASTM Test Monitoring Center.
3.3 PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL PROPERTIES
3.3.1 High Temp/High Shear Viscosity at 150 °C 3.5 cP min (ASTM D4683)
3.3.2 Phosphorus (ASTM D5951) 0.10 - 0.12 % (minimum limit may be waived based on valve-train wear test results)
3.3.3 Sulfated Ash (ASTM D874) 1.0 % max
3.3.4 Noack Volatility (ASTM D5800) 13 % max
3.3.5 Seal Compatibility (ASTM D7216)
3.3.6 Physical Appearance and Odor Shall be clear and bright with no objectionable odor.
3.3.7 Contaminants
ENGINEERING MATERIAL SPECIFICATION
WSS-M2C171-F
Copyright © 2016, Ford Global Technologies, LLC Page 3 of 12
Shall be free of carcinogens, toxins, and metals not removed in refining or from previous use.
3.4 QUALIFICATION PROCEDURE
3.4.1 Documentation
Applicant must furnish to Fuels and Lubricants Engineering a completed and certified copy of the attached Supplement A and test reports demonstrating full compliance with all the requirements of this specification. The test reports must include results on both the candidate oil and the appropriate ASTM reference oils. The standard photographs of the test components are considered an essential part of the required test documentation. The oil sample code used for identification in each test document must be consistent. Any deviation in sample code
uniformity must be explained and shown on the cover of each test report. All tests must be certified by a qualified and authorized representative of the test facility. The applicant shall identify all the formulation changes and modifications that occurred in the test program that coincide with the tests listed in the ACC Monitoring Agency summary. Individual formulations should be listed in Supplement A, and for ACC registered tests, identified by the line item number and the formulation code. Fuels and Lubricants Engineering will review all data and determine if it adheres to the requirements of this specification. After review of the data, Fuels and Lubricants Engineering will notify the applicant of its decision in writing. If approved, the applicant will receive a letter of approval and will be placed on a list of approved formulations. At this time the applicant may display that their product is approve to this specification. If the applicant's formulation is not approved, Fuels and Lubricants Engineering will contact them in writing with the reason for rejection and additional sting/documentation necessary to continue reviewing the formulation.
3.4.2 "Read Across" Guidelines
It is recommended that all performance tests be conducted on the final formulation. The API Base Oil Interchangeability Guidelines and the API Guidelines for SAE Viscosity-Grade Read Across may be used. However, Fuels and Lubricants Engineering reserves the right deviate from tthese guidelines and additional testing or support data may be requested.
3.4.3 Fleet Testing
Materials which constitute a significant departure from conventional formulations, whether in base stocks, refining processes or additive packages, must be fleet tested, in addition to the
requirements outlined herein. These tests must include the type(s) of service judged to be affected by the difference in formulation technology. Fuels and Lubricants Engineering
should be consulted prior to testing.
3.4.4 Verification
Fuels and Lubricants Engineering reserves the right to conduct verification testing. If the test results do not support the originally submitted data, the fluid supplier must re-test the
product in coordination with Fuels and Lubricants Engineering. This re-test must be ENGINEERING MATERIAL SPECIFICATION WSS-M2C171-F Copyright © 2016, Ford Global Technologies, LLC Page 4 of 12 conducted and certified by a mutually agreed upon test facility.
3.4.5 Chemical and Physical Properties
Applicant shall furnish appropriate chemical and physical properties as required on Supplement A along with the manufacturing limits that apply to the material as requested.
3.4.6 Quality Control
The applicant and Fuels and Lubricants Engineering shall establish mutually agreed upon quality control limits to be listed in Supplement B. These will be used for ongoing product verifications at mutually agreed upon frequencies. The infrared absorption spectra of the approved material shall constitute the reference standard and shall be kept on file. All samples shall produce infrared curves that correspond to the reference standard when tested under the same conditions as those specified on the master curve.
4. GENERAL INFORMATION
The information given below is provided for clarification and assistance in meeting the requirements of this specification. Contact [email protected] for questions concerning Engineering Material Specifications.
4.1 APPROVAL OF MATERIALS
4.1.1 FOR FORD MOTOR COMPANY INTERNAL USE
Suppliers desiring approval of their materials shall first obtain an expression of interest from Purchasing, Design or Product Development, and Materials Engineering. The supplier shall submit a completed copy of their laboratory test reports, signed by a qualified and authorized representative of the test facility, demonstrating full compliance with all the requirements of the Material Specification. Tested material samples must be available for review upon request and kept for a minimum of one year. Upon request, the supplier will review the associated quality control documents (Process Failure Mode and Effects Analysis, Control Plans, Certification testing) with Ford.
4.1.2 APPROVAL OF MATERIALS FOR THE APPROVED FORMULATIONS LIST
Oil marketers and additive companies desiring approval of their materials shall contract Fuels and Lubricants Engineering and provide the required documentation listed above using the supplements in this specification. Once the information is provided it will be evaluated by Fuels and Lubricants Engineering. Fuels and Lubricants Engineering will contact the provider in writing if the data provided is acceptable or if more information and testing is required.
4.2 SUPPLIER'S ONGOING RESPONSIBILITY
4.2.1 FOR FORD MOTOR COMPANY INTERNAL PRODUCTS
All materials must be equivalent in all characteristics to the material upon which approval was originally granted. Prior to making any changes to the material originally approved, whether or not such changes affect the material's ability to meet the specification requirements, the supplier shall notify the affected Supplier Technical Assistance (STA), Purchasing, and Materials
Engineering activities of the proposed changes (with reasons) by submission of a completed Suppliers Request for Engineering Approval, SREA. ENGINEERING MATERIAL SPECIFICATION WSS-M2C171-F
Copyright © 2016, Ford Global Technologies, LLC Page 5 of 12 For parts and components using Ford Engineering Material Specifications, all samples tested to the specifications for Design Verification (DV), Production Verification (PV) and Production Part Approval Process (PPAP) sign off must be kept until Job 1.
4.2.1 FOR THE APPROVED FORMULATIONS LIST
For any products on the approved formulations list, Fuels and Lubricants Engineering must be made aware of and approve any formulation changes, information provided on page 1 for supplement a, prior to these changes going into production. Fuels and Lubricants Engineering reserves the right to request testing or support data for any formulation changes.
4.3 RESTRICTED SUBSTANCE MANAGEMENT STANDARD
Substance restrictions imposed by regulations or Company direction applies to the materials addressed by this document. The restrictions are identified in the Restricted Substance Management Standard WSS-M99P9999-A1 which is updated yearly. It is the supplier’s responsibility to comply with this standard on a continuing basis through IMDS and or GMAP reporting. KV at 40 °C Additive In Finished Oil, Vol. % Name/Group Type Vol. % KV at 100 °C Sulfur, % ENGINEERING MATERIAL SPECIFICATION WSS-M2C171-F1 Supplement A / Page 1 of 6
Supplier Product Name
Product Code Viscosity Grade
Plant Location Date
Base Oils
________________________________________________________________________________________________
A.
B.
C.
D.
Refinery Name & Location Process Type Crude Source
A.
B.
C.
F.
D.
Formulation Additives
Additive /Type Mfg. Name Additive Code Description
E
page 6 of 12
G.
H.
I.
Signature / Title ____________________________________________________________________________________
Supplier
Product Name
Plant Location
Performance Requirements
MTAC
Requirements Specification Test Results
Mack T-11 Test (D7156)
Test # / date:
TGA % Soot at 4 cSt increase, 100ºC, min 3.5/3.4/3.3
TGA % Soot at 12 cSt increase, 100ºC, min 6.0/5.9/5.9
TGA % Soot at 15 cSt increase, 100ºC, min 6.7/6.6/6.5
Mack T-12 Test (D7422)
Test # / date:
Average Cylinder Liner Wear, μm max 24
Avg Top Ring Weight Loss, mg, max 105
Oil consumption gph, max Report
Cummins ISB Test (D7484)
Test # / date:
Slider Tappet Mass Loss, mg, max 100/108/112
Cam Wear, μm, max 55/59/61
Crosshead Weight Loss Rate & Report
Cummins ISM Test (D7468)
Test # / date:
Merit Rating, min 1000/1000/1000
Top Ring Mass Loss, mg, max 100/100/100
Crosshead Average Weight Loss, mg max 7.1
Oil Filter differential Pressure, kPa, max 19
Average Engine Sludge, min 8.7
Ave. Valve Adjustment Screw Weight Loss, mg max 4 5
Caterpillar 1N (D6750)
Test # / date:
Weighted Demerits, max 286.2/311.7/323.0
Top Land Heavy Carbon, %, max 3/4/5
Top Groove Fill, %, max 20/23/25
Oil Consumption, g/kW-hr, max 0.54/0.54/0.54
Ring/Liner Scuffing none
Date
Signature / Title ____________________________________________________________________________________
page 7 of 12
ENGINEERING MATERIAL SPECIFICATION
WSS-M2C171-F1
Supplement A / Page 2 of 6
Product Name
Viscosity Grade
______________________________________________________________________________________________
MTAC
Requirements Specification Test Results
1000 min
none
Report
Report
Report
Report
Roller Follower Wear Test (D5966)
7.6/8.4/9.1
11.8/11.8/11.8
Volvo T-13 Oil Oxidation Test (D8048)
125/130/133
75/85/90
Avg. Oil Consumption, 48 h to 192 h, g/h, max Report
Signature / Title _______________________________________________________________________________________
ENGINEERING MATERIAL SPECIFICATION
WSS-M2C171-F1
Supplement A / Page 3 of 6
Supplier Viscosity Grade
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
page 8 of 12
Performance Requirements
Oil Aeration volume, 40 hr. to 50 hr., %
Kinematic Viscosity Increase at 40 oC, % max
IR Peak at EOT, Abs., cm-1
Caterpillar C13 Heavy-Duty Engine Oil Test (D7549)
Test # / date:
Oil Consumption
Top Groove Carbon
Top Land Carbon
Ford Valve-train Wear Test
(Consult Ford Engineering for specific requirements. Ford Engineering should be notified prior to scheduling/conducting any test. Test requester shall also provide test information, including, test lab, formulation code and test identification number.
Test # / date:
Test # / date:
Caterpillar-C13 Engine-Oil Aeration Test (D8047)
Product Code
Date
Second Ring Top Carbon
Test # / date:
Pin Wear, μm, max
Merits
Hot Stuck Rings
Product Name
Plant Location
ENGINEERING MATERIAL SPECIFICATION
Final
Formulation Code
Viscosity Grade
I. Base Stocks, vol. %
1)
2)
3)
II. Additive Treat, mass %
A)
B)
C)
D)
E)
III. New Oil Inspection
KV at 100°C, cSt
KV at 40 °C, cSt
VI
CCS Vis at (-)XX°C
NOACK , %
TBN
S
Ca
Mg
P
Zn
Ba
Mo
Ba
Na
N
Cu
Cl
Comments
Comments
Comments
Comments
Signature / Title _________________________________________________________________________________________
Elemental, mass % (report numerical values only)
IV. Engine/Bench Tests Conducted (list test conducted for each formulation)
page 9 of 12
WSS-M2C171-F1
Supplement A / Page 4 of 6
Product Name Product Code
Plant Location Date
Reblends/Reformulations
(-)XX = Appropriate temperature for the viscosity grade as shown is the latest SAE J300 Standard
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Supplier Viscosity Grade
ENGINEERING MATERIAL SPECIFICATION
Supplier
Product Name
Plant Location
Physical/Chemical Properties
Mfg.
Specifications Results Limits
Kinematic Viscosity (D445), cSt
KV at 150 °C report
KV at 100 °C SAE J300
KV at 40 °C r e p o r t
Density, kg/L (D1298) report
CCS Viscosity at -XX °C, cP, (D5293) SAE J300
MRV Viscosity at -XX °C, cP, (D4684) SAE J300
MRV of Sooted Oil at -20 °C (D6896)
180 hr. oil sample, cP 25,000 max
Yield Stress of the 180 h used oil sample, Pa max < 3 5
Pour Point, °C (D97) report
Volatility at 250 °C, % (D5800) 13.0 max
HTHS Viscosity, cP at 150 °C, (D4683)
New Oil 3.5 min
Shear Stability after 90 passes shearing, (D7109)
mm2/s at 100°C, min
xW-30 9.3
0W-40 12.5
Other xW-40 12.8
HTHS viscosity at 150°C, (D4683), min xW-30 3.4
HTCBT at 135°C (D6594)
Copper, used oil increase, ppm 2 0 m ax
Lead, used oil increase, ppm 120 max
Copper Strip Rating, max 3
Foaming (D892)
Sequence I, mL 10/0 max
Sequence II, mL 20/0 max
Sequence III, mL 10/0 max
Phosphorus, % (D4951) 0.10 – 0.12
Sulfur, % (D4951) 0.40 max
Sulfated Ash, % (D874) 1.0 max
Total Acid Number (D664), mg KOH/g report
Total Base Number (D2896), mg KOH/g report
Total Base Number (D4739), mg KOH/g report
_________________________________________________________________________________________
page 10 of 12
WSS-M2C171-F1
Supplement A / Page 5 of 6
Signature / Title ____________________________________________________________________________________
Date
Viscosity Grade
Product Code
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Elongation, %
Hardness, Points
Results Limits Results Limits
Volume Change, % +5/-3
Hardness, Points +7/-5
Tensile Strength, % +10/-TMC1006
+20/-30
Volume Change, % +5/-3
Tensile Strength, % +10/-45
Elongation, % +10/-TMC1006
Volume Change, % +5/-2
Hardness, Points +8/-5
Tensile Strength, % +18/-15
Elongation, % +10/-35
Supplement A / Page 6 of 6
WSS-M2C171-F1
ENGINEERING MATERIAL SPECIFICATION
Product Name
Plant Location
Viscosity Grade
Product Code
Date
Test Results Mfg. Limits
Volume Change, % +TMC1006/-3
Hardness, Points +5/-TMC1006
Seal Compatibility (ASTM D7216)
Supplier
Volume Change, % +TMC1006/-3
Hardness, Points +5/-TMC1006
+7/-5
Tensile Strength, % +10/-TMC1006
Elongation, % +10/-TMC1006
a. Nitrile/NBR
b. Silicone/VMQ
c. Polyacrylate/ACM
d. Fluoroelastomer/FKM
e. Vamac G
Nitrogen
Potassium
Sodium
page 11 of 12
Phosphorus
Zinc
Magnesium
Boron
Molybdenum
Calcium
Tensile Strength, % +10/-TMC1006
Signature / Title _______________________________________________________________________________
Chlorine
Barium
Sulfur Other
Silicon
Copper
Elemental, mass %
Elongation, % +10/-TMC1006
Typical Range Typical Range
Phosphorus
Zinc
Calcium
Magnesium
Boron
Molybdenum
Sulfur
-XX = Appropriate temperature for the viscosity grade as shown is the latest SAE J300 Standard
Physical/Chemical Properties
Nitrogen
Copper
Elemental, mass %
Sequence I, mL
Sequence II, mL
Sequence III, mL
Sulfated Ash, % (D874)
HTHS Viscosity, cP at 150 °C (D4683)
Foaming (D892)
ENGINEERING MATERIAL SPECIFICATION
Supplier
Plant Location
Product Name
Viscosity Grade
Product Code
Date
Supplement B / Page 1 of 1
WSS-M2C171-F1
Signature / Title ____________________________________________________________________________________
page 12 of 12
Kinematic Viscosity at 100 °C, cSt 100 °C
Kinematic Viscosity at 40 °C, cSt
Density, kg/L, (D1298)
CCS Viscosity at -XX °C, cP (D5293)
Low Temp Pumping Viscosity at -XX °C (D4684)
Pour Point (D97), °C
Flash Point,°C (D93)
Volatility, Loss at 250 °C , % (D5800)
Potassium
Sodium
Chlorine
Barium
Other
Limits Frequency
Fuels and Lubricants Engineering concurrence ___________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for that. That gives us at least some information about the thought process. It still doesn't explain why CJ-4 low phosphorus lubes are okay according to Ford's manuals or the previous test, but CK-4 is automatically up for review, with or without a gas spec, but that's another matter.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
Thanks for that. That gives us at least some information about the thought process. It still doesn't explain why CJ-4 low phosphorus lubes are okay according to Ford's manuals or the previous test, but CK-4 is automatically up for review, with or without a gas spec, but that's another matter.
Thats because nobody knows, but really because, the real reason is Ford's unwillingness to talk about it. I was always and still with you on that one, but since Shell approved Ford's spec for there T6 5w40 and also there list of approved oils are now quite long, its hardly now a hardship for people to stick to a Ford specced diesel oil, although there is still plenty of commonly available oils that do not have the Ford spec.
 
The availability is obviously improving, but my main concern has always been how Ford is so unclear with it, and playing fast and loose with API rules. Either mandate your spec, or don't mandate it. It's as simple as that. Saying CJ-4 is okay without a builder approval but CK-4 isn't is just silly.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
The availability is obviously improving, but my main concern has always been how Ford is so unclear with it, and playing fast and loose with API rules. Either mandate your spec, or don't mandate it. It's as simple as that. Saying CJ-4 is okay without a builder approval but CK-4 isn't is just silly.
Yeah, agree with that. Its just plain silly. Especially, when questioned, its all proprietary information that cannot be talked about.
 
I'm sure it'll all work out eventually, but it does cause unneeded consternation. Ford should have been on top of this ages ago. All they would have needed to avoid this was say use a lube with builder approval only.
 
This can't possibly apply to the 6.0. No secret the 6.7 has a design flaw that exhibits higher than normal wear...one of the 6.7 engine revisions for 2020 addresses this issue.

Either Ford was looking to blame the oil for their design flaw, or they were attempting to sell more Motorcraft branded oil.

I've been using el cheapo $11/gallon Delvac 1300 that only has ~700ppm phosphorus with zero issues at 175K miles.
 
Originally Posted by Wizz
Either Ford was looking to blame the oil for their design flaw, or they were attempting to sell more Motorcraft branded oil.

There is precedent for both.
wink.gif
 
Well at least there's a detailed document out, even if it was illicitly gained?



- How do they know that 1000ppm if Phos is enough? There is clear data that shows less than 1000ppm is detrimental; question is "how much less = bad?" Is 800ppm too little? But what if 900ppm is enough? Or maybe 1000 is not sufficient and only delays the onset or retards, but does not eliminate the wear? Maybe 1200ppm is what's needed to completely stop the wear issue? Even if you do use CJ-4 with 1000ppm, is that really enough to stop the issue, or just slow it down to a point AFTER warranty, so it's no longer Ford's fiscal concern? (as if Ford needs another diesel debacle after the 6.0 and 6.4 .....)

If this were a really good test report, they'd be able to state the following:
- phos at 800ppm gives (xxx,xxx) cycles MTF (mean time to failure)
- phos at 900ppm gives (yyy,yyy) cycles MTF
- phos at 1000pppm gives (zzz,zzz) cycles MTF
etc ...
A proper engineering development test would not just say "Hey! we found a problem and let's just run back to the old lube". Rather, it would state "We found an issue. The issue manifests at different failure rates, based upon the concentration of Phos. Our threshold for a desired life-cycle is this (aaa,aaa) and so we need a min phos of (bbbb) ppm to achieve that goal.

All the other OEMs in light, medium and heavy duty diesel markets found a way to live with the CK-4. Clearly this is not a lube problem; it's a Ford problem. I would certainly contend it's a design/material issue that is unique to Ford's 6.7L PSD. Congrat's Ford; you've generated a unicorn that needs special treatment - a unique oil. Sure, there's a lot to choose from and there's no reason this cannot be dealt with safely (at least for now ....) Luckily there's an easy cure; blast it with phos.
 
Originally Posted by Garak
Originally Posted by Wizz
Either Ford was looking to blame the oil for their design flaw, or they were attempting to sell more Motorcraft branded oil.
There is precedent for both.
wink.gif

Agreed! On another note, anyone looking for 40 gallons of CJ-4 oil?
grin.gif
grin.gif
 
Man I hope this is just ford being ford and not a real issue. I've been running delo xle 10w30 in my 00 7.3 for 2 years...ck 4. I was actually thinking the other day that my truck has never sounded better.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top